Lawson v. State

993 appellants Although judgment Peter on the claim. Duncan to the tort2 as relate Jackson, (Wyo. "additional materi v. 903 P.2d 551 the record contains Town claims claim, 1995) (We specify grant summary he does affirm supporting als" will a fact, In of such. location or substance judgment legal if it can be sustained on proceedings, record.). al summary judgment ground appearing in the response filed a though appears that Peter summary judgment, motion for

to Sharon's CONCLUSION inexplicably absent from the response is Upon plenary review of all the evi record. submitted, viewing dence the facts many we have said As Peter, light most favorable to we affirm the times, the burden of appellant carries summary judgment granting of on all issues to this Court for bringing complete record appeal. raised on Peter has failed to demon Oedekoven, Stroup 995 P.2d v. review. disputed question strate a of material fact Retzs, 44, ¶ 15, (Wyo.1999). In 2008WY 129 regarding capacity Mercedes' mental to exe concept this P.3d at 90 n. we discussed 181 documents, planning or cute the estate Shar summary judgment, stating: in the context Furthermore, alleged on's undue influence. sup- Appellants filed several motions present cogent failed to because Peter has opposition to the motions for plements argument pertinent authority or cite to fa judgment, only designated summary but voring adoption of the tort of intentional for inclusion in the record on one of those expectancy, interference with an inheritance Although grant we review a appeal. summary judgment we will affirm the re novo, summary judgment de that standard garding that claim as well. that we not alter the fact consid- does portions of the record er designated appel-

parties properly for have consid-

late review. this we arguments

ered the made and exhibits

cited in the documents we have

record. provide pertinent legal party fails to "When WY 2010 145 authority, cogent argument, sup or factual Aubrey LAWSON, Lashawn issue, provide cannot mean port for an we (Defendant), Appellant Wyo. ingful v. Fish review." Davison Game Comm'n, 121, ¶ 39, 2010 WY v. Kruckenberg (Wyo.2010); also see Wyoming, The STATE Masters, Inc., 40, ¶ 25, Ding 2008 WY (Plaintiff). Appellee (Wyo.2008). P.3d argu the relative dearth of S-09-0061, S-09-0209, Given Nos. S-10-0001. ment, analysis, legal support factual found Wyoming. Supreme Court of claim supporting in the record Peters intentional interfer adoption of the tort of 9, 2010. Nov. expectancy, an inheritance we find ence with proper case within which to that this is not Therefore, will

undertake such action. we summary

affirm the district courts award of 3. Plaintiff did submit claim to trustee four enumerated sentences read: complaint. in the form of a civil 1. Defendant Sharon De Lobo exercised prior complaint 4. This notified the trustee that influence over Mercedes Kibbee undue change validity challenges death in an effort to cause her to there were planning documents. her estate trust. intentionally De Lobo 2. Defendant Sharon expectancy [sic] interfered with Plaintiff's with Kibbee. to inherit from Mercedes KITE, C.J., GOLDEN, HILL,

Before *, BURKE, VOIGT JJ.

KITE, Chief Justice. jury Aubrey A Law- found Lashawn possessing guilty son cocaine and metham- phetamine ap- with intent to deliver. He peals, claiming the district court should have granted prosecu- him a new trial because the exculpatory suppressed tor evidence. He prosecutor engaged in mis- also claims the by soliciting testimony. conduct false We affirm.

ISSUES presents Mr. Lawson two issues for determination: this Court's improperly deny I. Did the trial court new trial motion for violations? prosecutor engage in II. Did the miscon- by eliciting testimony? duct false

FACTS January Cheyenne res police department of sus ident informed the pected drug activity nearby at a De house. began conducting tective Russell Edwards surveillance of the residence and observed a high coming going volume of traffic at all Among coming going, hours. those De tective Edwards identified individuals known users, drug to law enforcement as some past drug whom had been investi involved home, residing gations. Among those at the Lawson; girlfriend, he identified Mr. Torres; sister, Varela; Robyne Amanda Angila Bolton. Lozano, Representing Appellant: Diane PDP; Kerin, Defender, Tina State Public 21, 2008, February On Detective Alden, Counsel; Appellate Eric M. Senior informant, spoke Edwards to a confidential Appellate Argument Assistant Counsel. Playvsik, Ashley later identified as who was Mr. Alden. grand the detention center at the time on larceny charges. Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salz- She informed Detective General; burg, Attorney Terry selling L. Torres had been Wyoming Edwards Ms. General; Armitage, Deputy Attorney D. and cocaine from the resi- Mi- purchased Pauling, Attorney dence. Ms. Plavsik said she had chael Senior Assistant General; Attorney daily Jenny Craig, L. cocaine from Ms. Torres on basis Assistant of 2007. Argument by Craig. General. Ms. between October and December * argument. Chief Justice at time of oral kept

She also indicated Ms. Torres pillow, controlled Ms. they Torres' pink found a back- pink backpack. substances in a pack containing $2,000.00. over Under the bed, they zip-lock bags found containing over speaking Playsik, [¶ 5] After with Ms. grams grams of cocaine and 7 of metham- Detective Edwards learned Mr. Lawson phetamine. Near the bed on an others had been evicted from entertain- center, subsequently they residence. He ment digital scale, learned found a Cheyenne neighbor moved to another spoons and a white They residue. found hood. In March of Detective Edwards drug paraphernalia more parts other met with a second confidential informant the residence. Law enforcement arrested (C12), identity disclosed, whose was never Lawson, Torres, Mr. Ms. Bolton and Ms. who said Ms. Torres was the leader of a Varela. trafficking others, organization and the in upon [T9] Based drugs found under Lawson, cluding sold for her. CI2 the bed in search, claimed to have witnessed both Mr. Lawson charged Lawson was selling and Ms. Bolton with one pos- cocaine for count of Ms. Tor res. session with intent to deliver cocaine viola- Wyo. 85-7-103l1(2)() tion of § Stat. Ann. During frame, this time two resi (LexisNexis 2009); one count possession of neighborhood dents in the contacted Detec with intent to methamphetamine deliver in report suspected tive Edwards to drug activi violation of statutory the same provision; ty at the one occupied by home Mr. Lawson and count possession of Ms. Torres. of cocaine in began Detective Edwards violation sur of § 35-7-1031(c)(ii); veillance and on one occasion observed Mr. and one count posses- of Lawson yard. and Ms. Torres in the front sion of methamphetamine also in violation of He saw Ms. Torres pink backpack retrieve a 35-7-103l(c)@i). § Prior to his Mr. from a in driveway vehicle carry and it Lawson filed a demand for disclosure of all into the residence. exculpatory impeachment evidence known to 31, the State. months, Over the next four [¶ 7] On March Detective Ed provided State fifty-some pages investiga- wards saw a man leave the residence in a registration. vehicle with a Nebraska reports tive to Detec the defense. tive Edwards patrol informed the division [¶ 10] The matter went to trial in October and few minutes patrol later a officer of 2008. For its relied stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation. A on Ms. Plavsik and Mr. Giatroudakis to im unit canine arrived at dog the seene and the plicate Mr. drug activity. Lawson in the Ms. alerted ato container inside the vehicle. In Plavsik testified purchased that she cocaine container,

side the patrol officer found 7 between October and gen December of grams methamphetamine gram and 1 erally from Ms. Torres but also from Mr. cocaine. The driver of the vehicle was iden Lawson. She testified that on two or three tified as Steven Ciatroudakis He stated occasions, she traded items she gotten he had had stolen at from Mr. Law request son and Mr. Lawson's approximately Ms. Torres 15 min cocaine. She testi utes before the stop. traffic He fied that also said Mr. one time Mr. Lawson asked her to Lawson and Ms. Torres had an additional 2 PlayStation steal a 2 for him gave methamphetamine ounces of in posses their cocainein exchange. Another time she stole they sion and had indicated getting would be games exchange video for him in for cocaine. early more morning. Mr. purchased Giatroudakis testified that he methamphetamine from Mr. Lawson five or speaking [T8] After with Mr. Giatroudak- six in times the six is, leading up months law enforcement obtained a warrant to stop, traffic search and his arrest. He testi search the in early residence morning arrest, fied that night on the April Upon pur hours of of his entering one of bedrooms, they grams 7 chased found Ms. Torres in from bed. Mr. appeared just Lawson gotten up gave Lawson and Mr. Lawson him a standing and was next gram the bed. Under of cocaine. appeal. He filed a notice of Mr. Lawson was that sole defense Lawson's in district court filed a motion activity subsequently in the involved

he was appeal and to in- her sister record on girlfriend, supplement engaged of the documents copies clude but the residence shared the others who lived discovery trial. The prior produced in love with Ms. he was because in the house motion. granted court Law- district that Mr. Torres testified Ms. Torres. con- used, or even touched sold son never filed a motion for Mr. Lawson next [T 14] approve of her did not trolled substances he assert- court which new trial district selling them. drugs or involvement use of sentencing he had discover- that after his ed testify Plavsik to called Ms. counsel Defense exculpatory and pieces of a number of ed to Ms. Torres she wrote about a letter in its the State had impeachment evidence Ms. Bolton stating that she and April of during or before the possession in the search found the cocaine had obtained Lawson also to him. Mr. had not disclosed Bolton had and Ms. Giatroudakis from Mr. false testi- solicited asserted letter, In the bed. it under the hidden concerning the mony Mr. Giatroudakis from Playsik sorry that Ms. Torres stated she prosecutor made promises the nature of up in all of this "got caught and Mr. testimony. In a later exchange for his him in State, cross-examinationby mess." On undis- identified the pleading, Mr. Lawson however, nothing testified Ms. Plavsik exculpatory evidenceas follows: closed true; Ms. in the letter was she had written of Ms. report police 1. A interviews told her her to write it and had asked Torres Torres on and Ms. Varela ob- Ms. Torres write. She testified what to the cocaine in which stated from Ms. Bolton letter tained similar during the search under the bed found responsibility for Bolton took which Ms. Ashley had belonged to Plavsik in the found search. cocaine methamphetamine from obtained Carney. named Chris letter and someone than Ms. Plavsik's Other 1, 2008, relating to report September testimony, 2. A defense Mr. Lawson's Ms. Torres' discrediting Mr. Géatroudakis for August focused 2008 arrest Mr. Giatroudakis® Plavsik, directly im- only witnesses after en- methamphetamine, Ms. possession of activity. Through in plicating arising him the out of try plea charge of his to 1, 2008, cross-examination, attempted April arrest. counsel his defense received favor- to that Mr. Giatroudakis show 2008, prose- July e-mail from the 3. A testimony exchange his in for able treatment counsel re- Ms. Bolton's defense cutor to defense against Specifically, Mr. Lawson. to recommend garding the State's offer Mr. Giatroudakis about questioned counsel her on the condition she probation for prosecutor in agreement which plea his had made an earlier statement she retract one of the dismissal of agreed to recommend Lawson, she, Mr. indicating that and not counsel also against him. Defense counts at the residence. drugs found owned the prose- about the questioned Mr. Giatroudakis 10, 2008, from the A e-mail November his to the reduction of agreement cution's defense prosecutor to Mr. Ciatroudakis' $15,000.00 Defense to bond from $100.00. acknowledging that Mr. Giatrou- counsel despite attempted to show counsel also promises probation had received dakis to law enforcement she having admitted testimony against Mr. exchange for his property val- 400 items of had stolen 8300to "performed had satisfactori- Lawson and $100,000.00 exchange drugs, Ms. ued at ly'” Playvsik charged crime not been November page from the State's 5. A for those thefts. memorandum pretrial that, called, Carney stating if Chris guilty Torres jury found Mr. testify that he delivered expected to con- The district court on all four counts. methamphet- ounce of approximately II III and counts that counts I and cluded at the residence Torres amine to Ms. Mr. Lawson to merged and sentenced and IV her arrest. short time before years prison. of two to four two terms A page 6. from the State's November Bolton had admitted the methamphetamine 2008, notice of intent to un- introduce seized at the residence on charged misconduct evidence in State v. hers and said Mr. Lawson did not use or sell describing Carney's testimony Torres drugs. Mr. Lawson asserted the concerning delivery methamphet- his intentionally omitted those details from a night amine to Ms. Torres the before her report initially provided in discovery and had arrest. report only disclosed the full securing after plea agreement 7. A in State v. Giatrou- letter from Ms. Bolton in which she retracted dakis, agreed in which the State to rec- her earlier statement drugs were suspended ommend a sentence with su- hers. Mr. Lawson also claimed day the same pervised probation in exchange for Mr. Ms. Bolton retracted her pros- statement guilty plea CGiatroudakis' to one count ecutor charges against reduced the her. The possession with intent to deliver very day, metham- next guilty Bolton entered a phetamine charge and to plea and, second charges dismiss to the reduced when asked exchange testimony against for his provide to plea, a factual basis for her admit- Lawson. drugs ted the were hers direct contra- diction to her retraction. page A Mr. Lawson presentence investiga- from a also asserted that the report had maintained tion State v. Giatroudakis also reflecting agreement during trial that Ms. Bolton the State's to dismiss right had the assert her Fifth right Amendment charge against Mr. Giatroudakis in ex- testify disclosing without change testimony against for his defense or Mr. Law- the district court that Ms. Bolton had son and others. waived Fifth right part Amendment as of her plea agreement 9. A in State v. Bolton in plea agreement. asserted, Mr. Lawson con- agreed which the State to recommend first eumulatively, sidered the undisclosed evi- in exchange offender treatment for Ms. supported dence defense that guilty plea felony Bolton's possession others, belonged provided further basis for agreement and her impeachment of the State's witnesses and give a truthful factual plea. basis for her showed that some of the State's witnesses transcript 10. The of Ms. Bolton's re-ar- gave false at trial. raignment in which she testified that on 31, 2008, night of March she was in hearing, [¶ 16] After a the district court possession grams methamphet- of over 3 denied Mr. Lawson's motion. stating While amine, methamphetamine it was her and vastly preferred that it "would have that all part she had used of it the search. before of the evidence ... have been made available trial," to the defense in probable 11. Part of an advance of affidavit of cause dis trict court determined that suggesting State v. Torres could not con Ms. Tor- exculpatory clude material res owned evidence methamphet- the cocaine and suppressed. amine found district court entered stating under the bed and an 22, July to that order effect on 2009. confidential sources had identified her as methamphetamine the seller of and co- 7, 2009, August [¶ 17] On Mr. Lawson caine. rehearing filed a motion for in which he probable 12. Part of an affidavit of cause district, asserted that after the court's denial v. attributing ownership State Bolton motion, of his earlier the State had disclosed and cocaine found report containing exculpatory another evi stating the residence to Ms. Bolton and report dence. The of an interview De that confidentialinformants had identified tective with an Edwards conducted inmate in having methamphet- Ms. Bolton as sold County the Laramie Detention Center amine and cocaine. 2008, June of three months before Mr. Law trial, son's who stated as follows: motion, hearing At the [¶15] his prosecution Lawson also asserted the im was tired of all [Slhe the lies and wanted properly withheld evidence that an to tell the truth investigation about an 2008, 15, interview with the Detective Edwards had conducted on [her] 1000 evi suppressing bad faith in good ad- [She] boyfriend, Giatroudakis. Steven ¶ 12, State, 18, purchased metham- Chauncey v. 2006 WY

vised Giatroudakis dence. 18, (Wyo.2006),citing 21 United 127 P.3d ... in the Torres from Amanda phetamine 667, 675, 105 Bagley, 473 U.S. S.Ct. States v. not in- Lawson was past [Mr.] and (1985). 3380, 3375, The rule 87 L.Ed.2d 481 volved. justice miscarriage that a exists to "ensure a hear court convened The district 87, at Brady, 373 U.S. 83 does not occur." presented Mr. Lawson ing on the motion. at 1196-97. S.Ct. counsel, the woman three witnesses: who made the above statement and Detective ^[121] In order to establish a violation, hearing their Brady After a defendant must demon Edwards. counsel, prosecution suppressed the district court evi arguments of strate that dence, material or was not the evidence was favorable concluded the evidence defendant, motion. and the evidence was material. exculpatory and denied the impeach Id. Favorable evidence includes 676, Bagley, 473 U.S. at 105 ment evidence. DISCUSSION State, 3380; Davis v. 2002 WY S.Ct. Suppression Exculpatory Evidence ¶ 18, (Wyo.2002). Brady 47 P.3d 986 ^[119] Lawson asserts also extends to evidence gathered by investi to disclose the documents failed actually known to the gating officers but not through 14 17 above paragraphs Id., ¶ 14, identified Brady at 985. prosecutor. exceulpa- that those documents contained duty prosecu on the imposes an affirmative tory material to his defense. We evidence in the tor to learn of favorable evidence court's denial of a generally review district divulge such evidence to State's control However, Brady the defendant. Id. does trial for of discretion. motion for new abuse State, 83, 130, 187 P.3d 2008 WY Hicks "automatically require a new trial when However, improper (Wyo.2008). an prosecutor's after combing files ever exculpatory violates suppression of possibly useful to the trial discloses evidence right pro due constitutional defendant's likely changed the defense but not usually cess, are States, and constitutional issues Giglio the verdict." v. United subject Accordingly, 31 L.Ed.2d U.S. 92 S.Ct. to de novo review. Id. court's will review de novo the district we (1972). finding A the undisclosed deny motion for a decision to Mr. Lawson's required. Id. evidence is material is properly Id. new trial on the suppressed grounds that exculpatory evidence. im ty der exists that the result of the ^[122] when a reasonable Evidence is material proceeding probabili un ^[120] "The right to a fair would have been different had the evidence 682, Bagley, 473 U.S. at 105 by guaranteed to state criminal defendants been disclosed. State, 3383; 34, Thomas v. 2006 WY of the Fourteenth S.Ct. at the Due Process Clause ¶ 348, 15, (Wyo.2006). A 353 rea Amendment, imposes on certain States probability sufficient sovereign probability obli is with their sonable duties consistent confidence in the outcome of justice be done' to undermine gation to ensure 'that shall —Bell, makes a trial. Id. When the defense prosecutions." Cone v. all criminal 1769, 1772, —, 173 L.Ed.2d request prosecution fails to U.S. 129 S.Ct. specific and the (2009), Agurs, 427 citing may 701 United States fully, reviewing court con respond 97, 111, 2392, 49 LEd.2d 342 sider any U.S. 96 S.Ct. the failure directly adverse effect (1976). prepara on the respond might have had suppression by prosecution to favorable to a defendant and of evidence case. presentation tion or of the defendant's 683, at 105 S.Ct. at 3384. process. Bagley, 473 U.S. guilt violates due material to his possi Hicks, ¶ 31, 883, reviewing court should assess citing Brady v. "The 187 P.3d at Maryland, 373 U.S. might have occurred in 83 S.Ct. bility effect that such (1963). 1196-97, This is true totality 10 L.Ed.2d 215 light of the circumstances difficulty of recon- an awareness of acted with irrespective of whether

1001 [T25) structing post-trial proceeding in a Because the contracts were not dis- Bagley course that the defense and the trial closed to in pretrial discovery, would filed a motion have taken the defense not to vacate his alleging had been misled sentence by prosecutor's incomplete response." Brady right process. violation of his due The Court concluded: materiality, judging Id. In the focus is on the cumulative effect of the withheld evi significant is a likelihood that dence, than impact rather on the of each prosecutor's response respondent's dis- Id.; piece of evidence in isolation. United covery misleadingly motion induced de- Nichols, 2000 fense counselto believe that O'Connor and States v. WL U.S.App. Lexis 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. Mitchell impeached could not be on the (10th Cir.2000). basis of bias or arising interest from in- by ducements offered the Government. A review of cases in which courts prosecutor Defense counsel asked the Brady have considered whether violation any disclose inducements had been dependent occurred illustrates the fact na witnesses, made to inquiry. Bagley, ture of the 473 U.S. at failed to disclose that possibility of a 669-70, S.Ct. the defendant had reward had been held out to O'Connor and discovery requesting "any filed a motion Mitchell if supplied information deals, promises or inducements made to wit led to accomplishment objective "the of the exchange testimony." nesses their sought to be obtained ... to the satisfac- deals, any The Government did not disclose tion of [the possibility This Government]." promises or inducements had been made to of a gave reward O'Connor and Mitchell a witnesses, principal its state law enforcement direct, personal respondent's stake in con- officers James O'Connor and Donald Mitch viction. The fact that the stake was not ell, but did signed by disclose affidavits guaranteed through promise binding or describing O'Connor and Mitchell their deal contract, but expressly contingent ings Bagley concluding with the the Government's satisfaction with the end statement, "I freely made this statement result, served strengthen any in- voluntarily rewards, without threats or testify falsely centive to in order to secure promises having reward been made to conviction. me in return for it." Id. Bagley was tried Id. at 105S.Ct. at 3384. and convicted. Cone, recently, [¶ 26] More 129 S.Ct. Bagley subsequently cop received 1769, the Court considered a claimed ies of contracts O'Connor and Mitchell had violation in the context of evidence the State signed entitled "Contract for Purchase of tending support withheld the defen Payment Information and Lump Sum insanity dant's Charged defense. with two Therefor." The contracts stated the under murder, counts of first-degree Cone's sole signed provide would "upon information and defense at trial guilty by was that he was not receipt "upon such information" and insanity resulting reason of from acute am accomplishment objective sought to be phetamine psychosis. Id. at 1772-78. His obtained the use of such information to supported by defense was ...," ... [its] satisfaction the United States mother, three witnesses: his who testified pay would "a sum commensurate with ser that after his service Vietnam her son had vices and information rendered." Id. at changed, slept restlessly and sometimes According 105 S.Ct. at 3378. typewrit to a yelled sleep began out in his using and contract, description ten added to each drugs; psychologist, clinical who testified provide O'Connor and Mitchell were to infor posttrau- Cone's substance abuse and concerning mation tobacco and firearms vio matic stress disorder from Vietnam rendered by lations Bagley testify committed and substantially incapable him conforming of his against him in court. On a line law; entitled neuropharmacolo conduct to the and a Vendor," "Sum to be Paid to figure the gist, history who testified that Cone's of illicit was handwritten. drug Id. beginning Army $300.00 use in the had led to strengthened the inference that may have a disorder psychosis, amphetamine chronic suffering from with- para- and Cone was hallucinations through manifested obeying the murders, him from prevented at the time of the but his noia that drawal before, during and after the of behavior wrongfulness the appreciating law and with the conten- crimes was inconsistent The State's strate- at 1178-74. actions. Id. calculating, capacity as a present Mr. Cone lacked substantial gy was "to tion that he wrongfulness of appreciate the fully in control either intelligent criminal who or to conform his conduct to of the his conduct actions at the time his decision and of The likelihood strategy requirements the of law. key component of that A crimes. would have drug suppressed evidence claims of discrediting Cone's involved end, jury's verdict on the issue of affected the To that Id. at 1174. use." insanity is remote. lay witnesses to estab- presented expert and drugs, in- not addicted to that he was lish appellate Id. at 1785. The Court held whom he heroin addict with cluding a former by denying habeas relief on court did not err before the time a few months spent suppressed evidence was ground that the longer no testified she murders who jury's finding guilt.1 of immaterial to the away people who drugs, stayed from used In a double homicide did, drugs and had Cone use had never seen applied Bra Appeals Tenth Cireuit Court The signs paranoia. never seen him show dy confidence in the outcome to conclude its on all counts. jury convicted Cone seriously trial had been undermined Subsequently, learned about Cone pros by cumulative effect of evidence the possessed but had not evidence the State ecution had not disclosed. Smith Secre disclosed, including by Corrections, witnesses statements tary Dep't New Mexico (10th Cir.1995). high," Smith was "acted real appeared "drunk or F.3d that he weird," eyed" in "looked wild the two degree in the convicted of first murder murders, po days statements before two At the time he was deaths of women. user, drug that he a serious lice officials with the being investigated connection police interview notes of deaths, and undisclosed were also law enforcement officials Newell, suspect, Randy showing investigating another heroin addict dis with the former initial crepancies her statement between husband of one boyfriend or common law testimony. at 1788-84. While Id. The of the victims. Id. fail exception appellate to the court's taking investigative did disclose to Smith the not suppressed the effect of the jury ure to assess relating Mr. After a reports Newell. collectively, rather than item murder, evidence sought guilty of he found Smith item, Supreme concluded even Court claiming prosecu post-conviction relief collectively, suppressed when assessed it failed to disclose tion violated when con was not sufficient to undermine evidence relating his defense that someone evidence The stated: fidence the verdict. Court specific committed the murders. else question included women's cloth drug ad- evidence experts testified that his Cone's blood stains ing appeared with what to be posttraumatic stress disorder diction and Vietnam, days car a few after taken from Mr. Newell's originated during his service found; reports police indi years the bodies were [murders]. more than 13 before suspect in the cating Mr. Newell's status as a years, despite During those Cone's disorder, presence managed investigation; other Mr. Newell's use and mental education, travel, near the location separate on two occasions successfully complete his incarcerated) found; (when the bodies were Newell's function in where for his "Randy" Newell as an alias suppressed evidence use of society. The civil ^[1] . pressed phase the district court nor Mr. Lawson's considered the issue. Addressing of Cone's evidence was material case, question the Court concluded a the Because the question appellate of whether in the suppressed court sentencing at issue neither fully sup in jury's the remanded to the sentence. life in suppressed evidence and its effect on assessment of the prison "may Id. versus a death at well 1786. district court for proper been sentence, punishment," material a full the Court review of the Le. Newell; name, prior and, the con- the recorder true Samuel J. malfunctioned al record of Samuel J. Newell and his viction though heard, Davis's voice could not be he in participated delivery. fact in the Id. outstanding fugitive as a with an ar- status Thus, warrant; credibility Morris's was central and several statements Mr. the rest testimony State's case. In addition to personnel. Newell made to law enforcement deal, implicating drug in Davis the the Concluding that the undisclosed State testimony solicited from Morris that she was provided important investigative "would have recovering drug a addict and wanted to impeachment evidence to the de- leads and change escape drug her life and from the fense," highly probative respect "was with Id., ¶ 9, 47 world. P.3d at 984. very defense at trial and could Smith's and, acquittal," well have resulted in an con- [¶ 31] After Davis's conviction and sen cumulatively, undermined confidence sidered tencing, another informant notified defense trial, outcome of the the Court held approximately counsel a month before right to a fair trial. Id. Smith was denied his trial, Davis's she had recorded a conversation 829,833,834, at with Morris in the an course of unrelated investigation. recording, On the Morris - In to the result reached in contrast consuming could heard be Smith, the Tenth Cireuit held United making indicating statements she was Nichols, States v. 2000 WL drug trying not a reformed escape addict TU.S8.App.LEXIS 2000 Colo. J. CAR. ¶ Id., 11, drug world. 47 P.3d at 984. At Brady that no violation occurred when trial, hearing on Davis's motion for new sixty-two prosecution failed disclose presented tape recording the defense prior FBI documents Nichols' and the informant Morris testified that Mor City conspiring to bomb the Oklahoma feder- ris had told her the recorder used building. of the documents con- al Some malfunctioned; earlier transaction had not Timothy cerned contacts co-defendant - - - rather, deliberately she had turned it off. McVeigh groups; had with known militia ¶ Id., 12,47 P.3d at 985. Fortier, plead- who others concerned Michael guilty bombing; related to the ed to crimes appeal On [¶ 32] from the district court's possible additional still others concerned Brady determination that no violation oc reviewing conspirator. Id. After the docu- curred, reversed, finding this Court that the ments, found that the Court none of them Morris, prosecution suppressed tape participation cast doubt on Mr. Nichols' tape was the evidence the defense therefore, witness, bombing; considered impeach principal had to the State's "[when evidence, [they] with the whole bear no than and because evidence other Morris's suggest, if testimony probative insufficient value to dis- implicated Davis trans closed, they reasonably changed would have action, impeachment the undisclosed evi ¶ the outcome." Id. Id., dence was material. 47 P.3d at 986. Court, recently, This like the United More we addressed State Supreme Brady Court and the Tenth Cireuit Court claim in a case somewhat similar to Appeals, Chauncey, has addressed claims of Mr. Lawson's case. In varying depending presented testimony at trial of CS that violations with results ¶ 1, purchased methamphetamine the evidence at issue. she had from Davis Chauncey girlfriend was convicted of deliv and his at the home the defendant ery conspiracy methamphet together. to deliver where lived testified that of and CS methamphet At introduced a her initial conversations about amine. girlfriend, amine were with the but that she Morris, tape recording made a confiden informant, spoke Chauncey telephone on the tial of the transaction which about pick up purchasing whether to come to the house to allegedly participated Davis house, and when she arrived at the Id., 17, methamphetamine. 47 P.3d at 983. Davis's voice could not be met her at the door and took her into a Because heard clearly recording, girlfriend told him to on the the erux of the bedroom where Id., 16, give methamphetamine. case was the informant's her the State's Chaun really that she and night at 20. CS testified "[nlot that she was P.3d 27 and just coming down." The high, a but more quar like looked about cey agreed on what and was left the residence ter-gram and she given extensive discov- appellant was also by using part ery of that included statements later after materials a short time arrested tending re and another individual to show Id. The defense CS methamphetamine. heavily using testimony involved in and sell- that she she was girlfriend's lied on to CS and Chaun methamphetamine Finally, appellant had ing narcotics. sold Id., ¶ trial girlfriend]'s from [his in the transaction. CS's cey was not involved drug use and which which detailed CS's at 21. 127P.3d appellant's also used at the Chauncey guilty of jury found The © impeach CS. of, delivery one count of one count of ¶ Id., 20, at 23. concluded: We deliver, a controlled substance conspiracy to Id., case, Where, years age. a witness for eighteen as the instant person to a under trial, ¶ 11, exhaustively im- After the the State has been 127 P.3d at 19. peached, generally spe- documents not dis and as to the Chauncey two both obtained in summary suppressed of a DCI addressed previously: a cific issue closed twenty- evidence, identified that one addi- in which she we do not believe terview of CS of cumulative information piece woman, tional another people to whom she or seven Richardson, methamphet unworthy had sold the verdict of confidence. Leanne makes summary of DCI interview amine and Id., ¶ 21, fact 127 P.3d at 24. With these knew Richardson in which she stated she mind, specific applications we babysat Chauncey, sometimes turn to consideration of Mr. Lawson's claim. child, him girlfriend's and never saw sell Mr. Lawson has identified thirteen Id., ¶ 15, 127 P.3d at 22. drugs. that not disclose documents the State did from the appeal to this Court [¶ 35] On vary in kind but fall him. The documents for new court's denial of his motion district pro mostly categories: two documents into the CS in we concluded because claim viding support for Mr. Lawson's people she terview reflected the names drug activity he was not involved in provided drugs to and not her sources providing information he could documents obtaining drugs prove not tend to it did impeach have used to the State's witnesses. delivering Chauncey not involved con falling category first documents into the Responding Id. trolled substances. include the interview statements Ms. Vare- controlled, argument that Davis we said: la and Ms. Torres that had obtained the the bed from presents methamphetamine a much situ- found under This case different Davis, Carney, and Ms. Plavsik had left the ation than Davis. Mor- Mr. Whereas cocaine at the residence. Also included are effectively impeached ris could not be pages from the court file State v. Torres information, suppressed without the Carney meth indicating that Mr. delivered credibility was exten- instant CS's * * * night before sively challenged. Specifically, amphetamine to Ms. Torres the arrest, "worldly owned the found under jury her she had been told CS was had and confidential sources identi young lady" special who received deals bed selling methamphetamine methamphetamine dealers because fied her as from Similarly, page from the court file up the dealers cocaine. she was able to set ownership of the buyers. in State v. Bolton attributed other On direct and cross-exami- nation, methamphetamine, drugs to Ms. Bolton and stated past CS's use of that confiden selling had identified her as marijuana, explored, as tial informants and cocaine was methamphetamine and cocaine. Another previous drug-related arrests and were her - category abstaining falling into the first is the difficulty document convictions and « inmate and of the detention center questioned from was also statement CS narcotics. that she was night girlfriend of Mr. Ciatroudakis about her mental state on the replied that question, to which she she had lies and wanted to tell the tired of all the truth, purchased meth- Mr. Giatroudakis used earlier on October amphetamine past during Thus, from Ms. Torres the the defense the trial.... illegal and Lawson was not involved with exculpatory where evidence is discovered drugs. during the trial and defense counsel has much of an In its initial April ^[137] reports 15, 2008, discovery responses, Mr. Lawson Detective interview of Ms. Bolton. Edwards also makes the prepared prose tion, the find due the defense opportunity closing process argument, to use it violation. courts or other generally cross-examina- parts do not of Thomas, ¶ 16, produced partial report cution of the inter 131 P.3d at 353. Cliven that view, 28, 2008, the defense the full report had of the Bolton April dated which stated prosecution Detective Edwards and the trial, interview six weeks before we conclude attorney met with Ms. Bolton and her and Brady there was no respect violation with Ms. Bolton made concerning statements four the Bolton interview documents. 'six weeks were found. it in sold she was thirteen had started reflecting that Ms. Bolton closed another during children who lived dence, two of whom were Ms. Torres' chil dren, January and was Mr. Giatroudakis and she had slept before April using methamphetamine Nearly report in the years trial, the three months room where the dated old, the to Ms. Lawson/Torres primary interview that she she prosecution also August began selling Plavsik had source for later, 6, 2008, stated drugs when resi dis ap State v. Giatroudakis between Mr. CGiatroudakis'®defense counsel to Mr. Giatroudakis' stated: disclosed documents includes held-up his end probation due to against Aubrey Lawson. On Docket agreeing prosecutor. ^[139] 29-889, The testify of that deal In an undisclosed e-mail second counsel, helping court file and e-mails against others. He agreement I think category pages prosecutor police testifying [Mr. from the was for of un Gia- cooperation very troudakis'] helpful proximately twenty report times. The later good job. and he's done a I think that also during indicated Ms. Bolton had said finishes that docket for now. interview that found under Ms. Torres' and Mr. Lawson's April bed on Additionally, the undisclosed in- documents hers, were she and Ms. Plavsik had presentence clude a investigation report stolen them from Mr. night Ciatroudakis the (PSI) stating plea that a agreement was filed before and she hid them under the bed so no August two months before Mr. Additionally, one would steal them. the re trial, Lawson's in which Mr. CGiatroudakis port during indicated Ms. Bolton stated agreed plead guilty possessing metham- interview that Mr. Lawson did not use or sell phetamine provide with intent to deliver drugs. testimony against Mr. Lawson in exchange rather than merely statements State's Edwards' earlier tion for the two cution's failure Court's determination is whether reports Bolton interview sets actions, ^[138] raise serious during being forth in the issue inconsistent with Detective report, disclose the full reports the interview. more detail Ms. Bolton's State offers no until questions the second presented but asserts six weeks before about the report Although explana for this report prose that, which the with four report of for the State's charges. of 2008while he was out on second charge also include the documents also include Detective Edwards' disposition and recommend a charge. years supervised prosecutor agreed Giatroudakig' described in the PSI. The The undisclosed documents agreement actual suspended plea bond on the probation on the arrest to dismiss one to recommend agreement sentence August Brady constitutes violation. As we -In addition to its failure to disclose said, concerning the documents Mr. Giatroudakis' discovery essence of plea agreement, [the is the Mr. Lawson contends his trial, information after process right which was due was violated when the known to the but unknown to solicited false from Mr. them from Mr. plea agree- were hers and she stolen was no there Giatroudakis were not true. re- CGatroudakis during prosecutor's At ment. Gatroudakis, the Mr. examination of direct 8, 2008, prosecu- September the [T42] On following exchange occurred: plea a Ms. Bolton entered into tion and Q. [By prosecutor] [Defense the agreement agreed the State to ree- which treatment, including your ommend first offender about recent inquiring was counsel] you convicted of exchange ... were for years probation, conviction Ms. two felony possession of guilty plea what? Bolton's to agreement give and her to methamphetamine selling deliver- of and A. I was convicted plea. factual for her Con- a truthful basis ing methamphetamine. however, e-mail, trary plea the to the earlier many Q. How times? agreement condition the recommen- did not A. One. for offender treatment on Ms. dation first testify. agreement On the same Bolton's day signed plea agreement Ms. Bol- she May just a mo- I have [Prosecutor]: appeared re-arraign- for ton district court ment, Honor? Your plea guilty of ment and entered may. The Court: You charge felony possession methamphet- of of ) Q. prosecutor] Mr. Giatroudak- (By [the plea, the factual basis for her Ms. amine. As is, I have to admit [defense counsell-and night that on the she was Bolton testified exactly-but maybe it I I didn't follow following pos- the search she was in arrested inquiring type about some believe he was grams methamphetamine of session of over 3 your with arrangement seized in the and the mean, I there a deal some- charges. is pros- hers. The search of the residence was how? plea agreement ecution did disclose re-arraignment of, transcript pro- of the A. Not that I know no. ceedings prior to Mr. Lawson's trial. testimony and In addition to this Bolton testified at Mr. pertaining to Mr. Had Ms. [$48] the undisclosed documents prosecu Lawson's the cireumstances surround- plea agreement, Giatroudakis' statements, plea agree- ing and court docu her inconsistent tion did not disclose e-mails plea might disposition change the ment and have been concerning the ments However, helpful to his Ms. Bolton charges against Ms. Bolton as result defense. filed 1, 2008, mid-July right not to In invoked her Fifth Amendment April search. testify. attorney prosecu incriminate herself did not Ms. Bolton's complains that at the same time the exchanged concerning potential tor e-mails prosecution supporting Ms. Bolton's charges against plea agreement on the Fifth Amendment the right to invoke prosecutor's e-mail reflects that Bolton. The knew, cooperation and did not disclose to the "complete, truthful Ms. Bolton's court, knowledge defense or the district that she (including testifying) about her part plea agree- her drug trafficking given up right that as and involvement [of] however, plea agreement, does mean the difference ment. The associated crimes would any agreement by Ms. Bolton to imposed recommended sentence not reflect between a agreed give testify. for It states that she probation and a her." recommendation plea. agree- her prosecu a factual basis for her While The e-mail further reflects testify may have been discussed expect explain ment [Ms. Bolton] tor "would also ap- it during plea negotiations, does not not honest" when she stated she was part plea of the actual pear found April 15 interview event, August agreement. Ms. Bolton exer- April 1 search were hers. On testify the district right not to prosecutor's in accordance with the cised required to court ruled that she could not be expectation, provided Ms. Bolton a written testify. court further ruled that state The district statement which she said her earlier during statements drugs found under the bed Ms. Bolton's ments that changed jury's that it would have verdict were not admissible because there interview corroborating evidence of their trust- photographs was no is remote. The the State intro Because Mr. Lawson does not worthiness. duced into evidence and Ms. Plavsik's testi rulings challenge the district court's on those mony strong were evidence of Lawson's issues, we do not address them. involvement. This was not a situation like implicating in which Smith another [T44]) Having described the undisclosed suspect necessarily exeulpated Mr. Lawson. documents, cumulatively we consider them closely The situation more resembled Nickh- prosecution's determine whether failure Chauncey, ols and in which the courts con our to disclose them undermines confidence cluded evidence of the involvement of others undisputed in of the trial. The the outcome particular did little to cast doubt on the Mr. Lawson lived in a house evidence showed defendant's involvement. While some of the activity significant drug ongoing, where was residents, supported documents the inference that including Mr. Ms. all of the other Law- intimately may or Ms. girlfriend, son's were involved Torres Bolton have been the drug parapherna- drugs, drugs principal participants with and and in drug activity the and in lia were found the room and under the bed primary investigation, they the focus of the slept. Photographs where Mr. Lawson the are similar to the in undisclosed evidence clearly introduced into evidence State Chauncey in prove that do not tend to - scale, digital spoons two and a showed that Mr. not in drug Lawson was involved white substance on a red entertainment cen- activity. Given the cireumstantial evidence occupied ter located in the bedroom Mr. that in a activity he lived home where photographs Ziploc Other showed Lawson. place, in slept was common and a bedroom bags found between the mattress where Mr. drugs drug paraphernalia where and were slept at the end of the Lawson chest view, open in prosecu found hidden and the presented through The bed. State supporting tion's failure to disclose evidence Playsik that Lawson had direct in- Mr. Mr. Lawson's defense does not undermine drug trafficking. Although in volvement in our confidence the verdict. knowledge of his involvement was limited to Turning impeachment [¶ 46] evi through the October December 2007 time dence, frame, question there is no implicate directly him undisclosed and she did not evidence would have been useful to Mr. possessing drugs in found under the bed Law testimony in April impeach Ms. Plavsik's son his efforts to Mr. Giatroudak- if is and Ms. Bolton she had testified. How provided support for the State's case that ever, concerning drug activity. the undisclosed evidence Mr. Lawson was involved plea agreement Mr. CGiatroudakis' did not law Mr. CGiatroudakis' statements enforce- prior ment to the search of the residence induce the defense to believe he could not be drugs from Mr. he obtained the Instead, impeached happened Bagley. as supported and Ms. Torres further the case Chauncey, challenged inas the defense Mr. against Mr. Lawson. credibility. jury Giatroudakis' The heard testimony history using about his The undisclosed statements of Ms. [¶ 45] selling drugs. He testified that he was ad Torres and Ms. Varela that were drugs. dicted to He testified he had sold theirs and of Mr. Giatroudakis' incarcerated people proba to different girlfriend that Lawson was not involved bly forty fifty beginning in times Decem drugs were cumulative of evidence that with ber of 2007. He testified about his 1999 disclosed, ie., Ms. Bolton's interview felony taking conviction for indecent liberties statement Mr. Lawson did use or He that his with minor. testified most drugs, sell and also of evidence defense of, possession pos recent arrest was for trial, ie., testimony presented Ms. Torres' deliver, methamphet with intent session that Mr. Lawson was not involved. While police amine. He testified that when the may strength the undisclosed evidence that he ened Mr. Lawson's defense was not stopped him on he lied and away. drug activity, the likelihood tried to run involved clearly appears during leges re the record. clear that The record is prosecutor examination, transcript reflects that solicited direct that he did solicited testimony testimony Giatroudakis from Mr. from Giatroudakis concerning there was "no deal" with not know of deal plea in fact a charges against him when against him. charges filed regard to the agreement in which the State dis- However, testify him existed jury heard also proba- charge and recommended plea agree missed one that he had cross-examination charge exchange plead guilty to the tion on the second ment with the State guilty plea and prosecu Mr. Giatroudakis' exchange delivery for the count against Mr. Lawson. possession agreement tor's to dismiss probation. Mr. Ga- and recommend count prong, Turning to the second original bond testified troudakis also Supreme Court has said: de United States $15,000.00 had to reduced and jurors by deception liberate of a court and Thus, jail. jury get pay out $100.00 presentation of known false evidence is infer that from which could heard evidence rudimentary incompatible with demands directly implicating Mr. witness the only 153-54, justice. Giglio, at 92 405 U.S. S.Ct. drug activity had in 2008 Lawson Holohan, 766, citing Mooney v. 294 U.S. at from the State favorable treatment received (1935). 340, L.Ed. 791 55 S.Ct. 79 Yet, the criminal conduct. for his admitted State, result obtains when the The same that Mr. Lawson jury persuaded remained evidence, although soliciting not false allows drug trafficking. in Given that was involved Id., appears. go it to uncorrected when might jury from which it heard evidence Illinois, 264, citing Napue v. 360 U.S. 79 testify Mr. Giatroudakis was have concluded (1959). light In 8.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 benefit, simply ing falsely for his own we are after the the evidence defense uncovered in persuaded, as the Tenth Circuit was not plea agreement trial of a in which Gia- Mr. Smith, evidence "would the undisclosed plead guilty agreed troudakis to the deliv investigative provided important leads ery charge, agreed to recommend State defensel]," impeachment to [the evidence agreed pro probation, Mr. Giatroudakis respect highly probative with to Mr. "was testimony in Mr. case and vided Lawson's very and could defense at trial [Lawson]'s agreed possession to dismiss the Smith, acquittal." in an well have resulted testimony that charge, Mr. Giatroudakis' 50 F.3d at 833. no deal that he knew of was false. there was prosecutor the false solicited 2. Prosecutorial Misconduct testimony go but allowed it to uncorrected. Lawson has shown that the error trans Mr. issue, In his second Mr. [¥48] unequivocal in a clear gressed an rule law prosecutor Lawson contends the committed way. and obvious testimo misconduct when she solicited false ny that there was no from Mr. Giatroudakis prong plain the third of the [¶ 51] Under object at trial deal. Defense counsel did not test, if required a new trial is "the false error question prosecutor's or the witness's any ... in reasonable likeli could objection, an we response. In the absence of jury judgment have affected the of the hood plain error. review the claim for Conine principles Gig- in Applying ..." Id. these State, 146, ¶ 11, 160 2008 WY Taliento, lio, prosecution's princi where (Wyo.2008). plain er order establish witness, falsely that there pal testified 1) ror, alleged must show: exchange agreement leniency for his no 2) record; clearly appears error testimony, the Court stated: transgressed unequivocal an rule of law error depended al Here the Government's case 3) way; in a clear and obvious the error testimony; entirely on Taliento's most adversely affected Mr. Lawson's substantial indict it there could have been no without resulting prejudice in material to him. right carry the case to ment and no evidence to credibility jury. Taliento's as wit prong plain of the error The first important an issue al- ness was therefore is satisfied. The error Mr. Lawson test 1009 prosecutor but avoidanceof an understand- misdeeds of and evidence Brady, unfair trial to the accused." 373 U.S. prosecu- as to a future ing agreement Moreover, credibility relevant to his at at 1197. tion would be S.Ct. jury know of it. was entitled to and the obligation constitutional disclose [The [to reasons, process re- these the due For unrequested is meas- information] [not] Napue quirements enunciated culpability, ured the moral or willful- require a new ness, cases cited earlier prosecutor. highly other If of the evidence file, trial.... probative of innocence is in his Brady Id. prosecution's new ments testimony. ny. pend troudakis' ly port ing failing important Lawson has not shown that he is entitled to son asked shown that it take the case to the State's case exchange State. lio, dakis that he had counsel's dence that Mr. Lawson was involved activity, Giatroudakis, committed misconduct at trial for due In addition to the cireumstantial evi entirely 154-55, to correct the Additionally, plea agreement, Mr. or jury In contrast cross examination of Mr. Gatrou- charges against issue, issue or its solicitation of false credibility as a witness was an (Gigho, ^[153] her to steal It against Playvsik drugs. materially prejudiced him.2 the State failure to disclose the docu on Mr. appears clear from this record was aware S.Ct. we do not condone the In process plea agreement in contrast to false testified that Mr. Law Thus, to the situation jury. Giatroudakis' concluding prosecutor knowing Lawson did not de testimony items for Mr. Lawson even through defense violations under evidence While soliciting without Mr. Giglio, that Mr. with the concern testimo has him in Gig- sup Gia- not Agurs, prosecutors that when ment and the evidence lated Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8. mony but themselves they materially prejudiced. Given Mr. Ciatrou- hand is not {footnote In otherwise son in the Lawson has not dakis' icance even if he has bative should be be vital to tor. because an be served lieved he was [¶ 54] evidence, error, Conversely, reaching to determine whether Mr. Lawson was not or fail to disclose testimony 427 U.S. at it is because of the character of the significance Affirmed. and citation evidence results justifiable only not the character of the presumed drug activity, this by requiring the defense. punishment inept if fail suppressing a result, however, that he had a shown charge convictions, omitted). they actually implicating all, their exculpatory recognize actually material that of the If we conclude Mr. no solicit false testi- new duty fact that would incorrectly purpose S.Ct. overlooked it. constitutional The task at suppression plea agree- prosecutor, but has we remind prejudice. Mr. Law- its and risk prosecu- at 2401 no expose simply signif- would pro- vio- be- that document disclosure did not occur as GOLDEN, Justice, speciallyconcurring. testimony required and false was solicited opinion encompasses of our rules of ethics. While This three [¶ 55] contravention transgressions appeals not oceur consolidated I of this sort should before this Court. State, appeal the aim of due that each should be affirmed. the courts of this believe process punishment society for "is majority separately opin- I write because the prosecutori- presented we court did not abuse 2. Mr. Lawson his claim of conclude district its denying new al misconduct to the district court in his motion discretion in the motion for trial is, upon prosecutorial based misconduct. That district court for new which motion it, claiming appeal prosecu- including from the evidence before Mr. Gia- denied. on that the by soliciting testimony cross-examination that tor committed misconduct and fail- troudakis' on State, plea agreement had a with the ing to correct false Mr. Lawson makes testimony, reasonably argument could have concluded no the district court abused its district court denying his motion new trial. there was not a reasonable likelihood that his discretion argument appeal incorpo- To the extent his later false could have affected the claim, jury's judgment. by implication rates an abuse of discretion therefore, brief, appellate the three review of Lawson's distinguish between fails to ion argument directly improper in an reveals that his is related failure results appeals. This motion for to the district court's denial this analysis. such, required a new trial.4 As this Court is [T56]) treated appeals must be The three analysis engage proceedings in an appro on the issues separately, a focus proceedings in underlying that denial. The I note that this is priate appeal.3 to each evidentiary hearing cluded a full on Lawson's appellate brief Lawson's difficult because motion, after the district court found which separately. appeals He does not treat Brady that no violation had occurred and specific forth issues for each fails to set also that had not solicited analysis appeal. provides He then one testimony. by false The review this Court applies. identifying appeal to which without findings us should be of the district court's majority accepted opinion has Because ing appropriate standards of review.5 consideration, I will also brief for Lawson's my engage intent to in what do so. It is not S-10-0001, Turning Appeal No. analysis appropriate on the I believe is the appeal denying an order a second this is from simply lay out My purpose is merits. Sep entered on new motion proper approach what I consider to be underly tember 2009. Lawson based his deciding appeals. these alleged ing motion on an new violation stated, The district court held a full appeal the State. As each must be ad evidentiary hearing, after which it held that separately. Appeal No. S-09-0061 dressed newly brought Judgment from the and Sen discovered evidence to its appeal is an February materiality of the district court filed on attention did not meet tence brief, reviewing requirements Brady. Lawson's I exculpatory 2009. After Law applies to argument presented appellate newly find no dis son's brief addresses proceedings underlying that the trial or other at issue at this covered evidence Judgment and Sentence. I would therefore Therefore, hearing. there is at least one summarily Appeal affirm No. S-09-0061. analyzed within the context of this issue to be

[158] Appeal No. S-09-0209 arises appeal. appeal analyzed If [T each were inde- 60] Motion for New Trial from Lawson's done, pendently I should be as believe was filed on June 2009. As stated analysis considerably would be different. majority opinion, generally com Lawson importantly, different standards of re- Most plained exculpatory impeach of certain However, end, applied. view would be in the did not disclose ment evidence the State by my I am review that convinced own allegedly during as well as before majority opin- ultimate result reached by prosecutor false solicited brief, ion is correct. during appellate trial. In his presents argument that numerous vio (as explained in

lations occurred further

majority presents ar opinion). Lawson also

gument regarding alleged prosecutorial soliciting testimony. A

misconduct false appeals disclosure 3. in this instance false until he received the belated Consolidation purpose judicial economy. plea agreement was done for the from the State. materials change independent Thus, Consolidation does not firmly Appeal the issue lies within No. S- appeal. generally nature of each See 5 C.J.S. Appeal 09-0209 and not No. S-09-0061. (2007). Appeal § Error general, 5. standard of review on a motion - majority opinion analyzes prosecutori- However, for new trial is an abuse of discretion. allegation al misconduct as a trial error. I out, alleged majority opinion points as the an plain applies review to this error standard of Brady violation is reviewed de novo. Davis v. testimony allegedly claim because the elicited 88, ¶ 16, State, 2002 WY 47 P.3d 985-86 objected Logi- to at trial. was not cally, objected (Wyo.2002); Lawson could not have State, 1368-69 Lacey ( Wyo.1990). testimony he did not know it was trial since

Case Details

Case Name: Lawson v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 9, 2010

Citation: 242 P.3d 993

Docket Number: S-09-0061, S-09-0209, S-10-0001

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.